¶1While concurring fully with Justice CORSON that the order of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the answer must be reversed for the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, I am unable to fully agree with him in what he says concerning the plea in justification. The answer as interposed was divided into several paragraphs, the second paragraph therof clearly being the paragraph wherein the pleader intended to and did set forth those matters which he desired to plead in justification, which said paragraph is quoted in full in the foregoing opinion, commencing with the words “Defendant specifically denies” where the same appears immediately following the words “of said paper” and closing with the words “should be sold at retail in Webster and vicinity.” Justice CORSON says : “The answer in this case to be good therefore as against a general demurrer must state facts and circumstances which, if proven, would warrant the legal conclusion that the plaintiff did enter into such a combination.” As- I understand the views of my associate, as stated in the words above quoted, it is that the defendant in his answer should have made a statement of the facts, or acts of the parties which would go to show that an *514unlawful combination was entered into. It would seem to me that this would be but pleading- the evidence and that all that' could be required of the defendant in his answer, wherein he is charged with accusing the plaintiff of entering into an unlawful combination in restraint of trade, is that he state with reasonable clearness the nature and purpose of the alleged unlawful combination, the time and place thereof, the criminal intent on the part of said plaintiff in entering into such combination, together with the name or names of the other partj' or parties to such combination. A reading- of the second paragraph of said answer, it seems to me, shows clearly that the defendant has set forth each and every one of the above requisites to a good plea in justification, save and except that he has failed to state who was the other party or parties to the said unlawful combination.
24 S.D. 501
Williams v. Black
Decided January 12, 1910
South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1910-01-12
<p>A demurrer to an answer must be overruled if it states a good defense either complete or partial.</p> <p>The private business affairs of a citizen, occupying no public position and not a candidate for public office, are not a matter in which the public has any special interest within the rule of privileged communications.</p> <p>Though a newspaper publisher may print an impartial report of judicial proceedings in court, mere private investigations by officers or public authorities confers no more right upon him than upon a private individual.</p> <p>Newspapers have no greater privilege to comment upon the conduct of a private citizen than has a private individual.</p> <p>An answer in libel alleging that the publication was without malice, and not made with intent to injure plaintiff, but to discharge what defendant newspaper publisher believed to be his duty to the public, and that an investigation -was had in which witnesses were examined, and that defendant prior to the publication had heard and read the evidence of one of them, and that therefrom, with other knowledge ho, possessed, he was led to publish the article, states facts sufficient to show mitigating circumstances that might prevent exemplary damages.</p> <p>A demurrer including not only the failure of an answer in'libel lo state Ruffic.ic.nl facts to show justification or a privileged communication, but, also mitigating circumstances tending to prevent exemplary damages, must be overruled if facts showing mitigating circumstances are alleged, irrespective of whether either justification or a privileged communication is shown.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1910-01-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2010
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →